Pursuant
to notice to the parties, a hearing was held on December 11, 2008. The
Petitioner and the Respondent, each represented by Counsel, appeared at the
hearing. After carefully weighing all the evidence, I conclude that the retail
liquor license should be granted.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Having
observed the testimony of the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing
and closely passed upon their credibility, I make the following Findings of
Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Petitioner
seeks a retail liquor license for its location at 311 Oak Avenue, Blackville,
South Carolina.
2. Petitioner
is a resident of the State of South Carolina and has maintained her principal
place of abode in this state for at least thirty (30) days prior to making this
application.
3. Notice
of the application was lawfully posted at the location, and published in The
People Sentinel, on May 14, 21, and 28, 2008, a newspaper of general
circulation.
4. Petitioner
does not currently hold any other retail liquor licenses, or have an interest,
financial or otherwise, in any other retail liquor store.
5. The
location, formerly owned by the Applicant’s father, has been licensed since 1974.
6.
There are no residences, churches, schools, or playgrounds within five
hundred (500) feet of the location.
7.
Protestant James G. Fickling is the owner of a retail liquor store
located near the proposed location. Mr. Fickling objects to the license being
issued because of the number of liquor stores already in business in the area.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Based
upon the above findings of fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2008) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Court.
2. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 et seq.
(Supp. 2008) outlines the general requirements for determining eligibility for
a retail liquor license. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-120 (Supp. 2008)
specifically provides that a liquor license shall not be issued to a place of
business if:
the
place of business is…within five hundred feet of any church, school, or
playground situated outside a municipality. Such distance shall
be computed by following the shortest route of ordinary pedestrian or vehicular
travel along a public thoroughfare from the point of the grounds in use as part
of such church, school, or playground…
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-910 (2) (Supp.
2008) provides that an application for a license to sell alcoholic liquors must
be denied if, “the store or place of business to be occupied by the applicant
is not a suitable place.”
4. The factual determination of whether or not
an application is granted or denied is usually the sole prerogative of the
executive agency charged with rendering that decision. Palmer v. S.C. Alcoholic
Beverage Control Comm’n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). Administrative
law judges are authorized to determine the fitness of an applicant for alcohol
permits and licenses using broad, but not unbridled discretion. Byers v.
S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct.
App. 1984).
5. Although “proper location” is not
statutorily defined, the Administrative Law Court has the authority to
determine the fitness or suitability of a particular location. Fast Stops,
Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 181 (1981). The determination of
suitability of location is not necessarily a function solely of geography. It
involves an infinite variety of considerations related to the nature and
operation of the proposed business and its impact upon the community within
which it is to be located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d
335 (1985). In determining the suitability of a location, it is proper for this
Court to consider any evidence that demonstrates any adverse effect the
proposed location will have on the community. Palmer, supra.
Furthermore, in considering the suitability of a location, it is relevant to
consider whether the testimony in opposition to the granting of a license is
based on opinions, generalities, and conclusions, or whether the case is
supported by facts. Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E.2d 301
(1972); Taylor v. Lewis, et al., 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973).
6. Unless there is sufficient evidence of an
adverse impact on the community, the application must not be denied if the
statutory criteria are satisfied. The fact that a Protestant objects to the
issuance of a permit is not a sufficient reason by itself to deny the application.
See 45 Am.Jur.2d Intoxicating Liquors §162 (Supp. 1995); See 48
C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 166 (2004).
7. The ultimate issue of the Protestant’s case
is that he will be in direct competition with this liquor store. Protestant asserts
that this would result in economic harm to his business and to other stores in
the area. Protestant further claims that this license should be denied because
there are already other retail liquor stores in the immediate area, including
his, which is located approximately one mile from the proposed location. Protestant
maintains that the population of Blackville will not be able to support all of
the licensed stores.
Findings, however, may never
be based upon surmise, conjecture, or speculation, but must be founded on
evidence of sufficient substance to afford a reasonable basis. Mullinax v.
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 318 S.C. 431, 443, 458 S.E.2d 76, 83 (Ct. App.
1995). While the Court is sympathetic to the Protestant’s concerns, the
statutes provide no protection based solely on the economic security of the
existing liquor stores in the area. Testimony introduced at trial confirms
that the proposed location has been licensed and in business since 1974,
approximately thirty five years.
For the reasons above, the Court finds that the
Petitioner has met all of the statutory requirements for a retail liquor store,
and authorizes the Department to issue the retail liquor license.
ORDER
Based
upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for a retail liquor license by Gloria
C. Lebby, d/b/a ABC Package Store, 311 Oak Avenue, Blackville, South Carolina
must be granted.
AND IT IS SO
ORDERED.
___________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
January 26, 2009
Columbia, South Carolina